November_Echo

Large government fines that represent a significant portion of that company's revenue would be a good place to start. The fine would need to be big enough to hit the share price hard as that seems to be the only thing that CEOs/boards notice. This should also cause investors to be more careful about which companies they invest in and avoid companies with lax standards and push companies towards better outcomes.

That might sound good in theory, but no one is going to sign up for that. Who will want to pay $50 to not meet up with the creep some algorithm has set them up with? Honestly, it's kinda dangerous.

There are a number of reasons. 1) You won't always have access to the 1.5MW charging. 2) Stopping to charge, even if it's just for a few minutes, is inconvenient. 3) A larger battery will allow for greater lifetime range before it degrades to <80%

> TPG wanted to roll out faster AND cheaper fiber in the inner city. Government said no thanks, we'll keep NBN with abysmal upload speeds to protect our investment.

Allowing other networks to take away the easiest, highest margin customers would break the NBN. It would likely lead us back to an unfit for purpose, "Free Market" situation, that further disadvantages rural, regional, and remote communities.

> Just like you (at the moment) are acting like you don't care if people die in fires.

There is nothing in my comment that could possibly be interpreted as meaning I don't care about people dying in fires.

> If you want to replace FF there is exactly one solution, that's nuclear.

We're talking about batteries, so I'm not sure how this is relevant unless you want reactors in cars?

> Stop acting like you care about this issue. You have never cared enough to learn about it, so until you do, stop spreading misinformation about how physics works.

I made a single, sourced, claim in my comment and didn't mention physics once?

> Too bad there isn't enough Li for everyone to have one.

Could this be why companies are looking at alternatives? Either way, this claim really should be provided with a source.

> there's only one state (South Australia) that doesn't agree on the major standard sizes: Pints are 470ml, schooners are 425ml, a half pint is 285ml, and a pony is 140ml.

> Source: I have pretty extensive drinking experience in pretty much all of the Australian capital cities, except Perth.

I don't drink as much as I used to so this might be a little outdated, but in Perth "Pints" are 570ml. It was rare, but becoming less so, for some places to serve you a 470ml schooner when you ordered a pint. We avoided those places.

> This really sounds like 'but think about a poor car vendor!'.

It was absolutely not meant to come across that way. I just think it wasn't thought all the way through.

> And a poor car vendor definitely can't build at least 10 pre-production cars, run them with both a lightest and heaviest loads and different patterns and calculate the mean and use it instead of the one with the maximum distance with a minimal load, right?

This just sounds like vendor controlled slightly-less-standardised testing, not the real world based system they seemed to be arguing for.

> Advertised range should be the mean of the distribution, not the max.

Distribution of what? Assuming you mean the distribution of driving range achieved 'in the real world', how would that work before a car is sold? How often would it have to be updated in their advertising material? Over what sort of area would the distribution be calculated? How would anyone know if the advertised range of two different cars was even comparable?

Whilst the standardised tests could be improved, they are still the best way to compare products.

> should have to pay a KL divergence penalty on it that will be distributed to EV buyers as rebates

I get about 15% more range than advertised, should I have to pay a penalty for this?

I think they mean "most people are gamblers _who_ have no idea what they're doing"

> Later my boss told me not to do that again because it caused havoc with schedules and such.

Did you talk to anyone about your plans before you brought in the demo or let them know they were solved problems? Often these sorts of reactions come down to your boss not wanting their team to lose their jobs because of the perception that it can all be handled by one person who's happy to work weekends.

Ideally discoverability would be wholly solved by organic word-of-mouth recommendations. First from yourself as the only person who knows this product category exist then from the people who accepted your recommendation, had it solve their problem and finally saw fit to recommend it themselves.